I think I didn't make myself clear, as you and several others pointed out. What I meant is that when you google for windows problems you find forum after forum with the same useless answer: "download an updated driver" or something like that. When googling for linux problems you very quickly get to the place where experts meet and find a useful answer.
You know what I found; usually the "useless" answer actually does solve the problem. This quip of yours is seriously out of date.
That's the biggest advantage of open source. Even if you don't know how or don't have the time to mess with the source code, you can easily find people who are familiar with it.
You might, but you might not. I know I had lots of questions greeted by silence, or truely unhelpful answers. Why do you think I ditched Linux? It's problems become too much of a time sink.
As for the relative likelyhood of needing an expert intervention on both systems, let me tell you this: I was *very* familiar with the internals of windows before I started using linux. I was known as "the windows guy" before people started calling me "the linux guy". I know both sides of the equation, and I switched sides for a good reason. Linux is less demanding for the same functionality. It takes much less effort to keep a linux system working smoothly.
I really doubt it. Knowing regedit doesn't mean you know the "internals of Windows." There's quite a bit to Windows actually... it's a huge platform. And let me correct something, because it's clearly true: "I knew both sides of the equation." You don't anymore, and it's clear from your 1992 Windows issues that you don't.
I'd tell you to re-evaluate Windows, because much has changed.. but you're got Linus' cock so far down your throat I don't think you could do so objectively.
Aside from running Photoshop and Quicken, it does everything a computer should do, perfectly. I run work and entertainment applications. Play movies, browse the web, play music, invert matrixes, find eigenvalues, do fourier transforms, administer databases, etc.
I asked for the "and more." This is all stuff Windows already does very well for me. In other words, you pointed out the "just be windows" stuff.
And what I don't need to do: no need to run virus scan, no need to defrag disks, no need to buy memory upgrades, no need to buy software, no need to run regedit, etc.
Ha.. not because Linux is somehow more secure, which it's not. You don't need to run AV because nobody uses Linux on the desktop, so there's no point in trying to get a bot network of Linux machines. As far as your other crap goes, I don't need to upgrade anything either, run regedit.
Oh, and they give away Photoshop and Quicken for Linux users? How nice of them!
What windows can do but is much easier in Linux: run a web server, run a mail server, run a file server, run *any* server.
Hmm... most of those things Joe Sixpack doesn't give a shit about, much like the source code. Of coruse I can easily run server if I want to on Windows. IIS has FTP and Web, there are plenty of Windows mail servers. Just a few clicks and they're up and going.
And file servers... are you fucking kidding me? Filesharing in Windows is just a few clicks away, plenty of joe sixpacks set it up. Christ... you are WAY out of touch with reality.
No hassle, no regedit, no googling forum after forum looking for answers, no downloading drivers, no reformatting, no reinstalling. The "and more" that Linux does perfectly now is what a computer should do, it runs year after year without any intervention. I have a Linux server running without *any* input at all since 1992. It does its simple task exactly as it was meant to.
Yea, no need to download a driver. With Linux, it might work, but if it doesn't, you're screwed. Everything else applies to Windows just as much as Linux. Again, you're showing just how out of touch with reality you are.
On the desktop side, the "and more" means I can configure my desktop and icons in the way I prefer without any problem, I just select whatever I want without having to worry about "security". The system is secure because it was designed that way, I don't need to buy or download anything.
I can do that too, and Window is secure as well. Seriously... get your head out of your ass (and 1992).
I can configure the way the desktop works. I can select between several different desktop managers. High performance (KDE), easy to configure (Gnome), low hardware requirements (IceWM), you name it.
Wow... well, forutnatley Windows is easy to configure and performs well too. Low requirements only matter if you're running the same computer you were in 1992... which it sounds like you are. I don't care what OS is on a 1992 computer, it won't be fast enough for me.
And, if something doesn't work the way it should, I have no need to reformat and reinstall, download newer drivers, repeat, ad infinitum. With Linux there's always one more resource, google the problem and you'll find a forum somewhere with the answer, even if it means you'll have to recompile something. It's better to recompile than to fall back to reformat and reinstall...
And yet I'm spending less time getting Windows to do what I want than I did with Linux. What is really amusing is that the same reasons people had for not going to Linux are still there.. they were there when I switched (but at the time I was on the antiMS bandwagon too, and bought the garbage hype), and they're still there now. Nothing has changed in Linux.. it still has all the same old problems.
Thanks for proving my point though... I asked for the "and more" part and you gave me nothing but bullshit and lies, and nothing compelling. ("Oh... I can move my icons how I want to!" Like I couldn't in Windows..)
At the hospital my wife works at, they are using steroids to treat a range of problems, some of them as silly as "I think my sons penis is too small" or "my daughter doesn't have breasts yet / is already starting to grow breasts." So yes, appearly T is safe in some dosages, even when mommy doesn't know what she's doing and turns up the dosage inadverently to 2.5x the amount the doctor prescribed.
Like anything, too much is not a good thing, and once you introduce blanket bans you get black market effects... just like your cocain might contain some rat poison the black market steriods could contain just about anything, or might not even be for the right species.
Malice, or because they don't want to spend time implementing something that isn't part of the spec? The goal was to implement the spec, not to make sure OOo can read the files put out.
There's also the aspect of looking at other programs code; I'm sure they don't want GPL code slipping into their code. That leaves clean room reverse engineering... to do something not specified in the spec.
Is MS snickering at this? Possibly... but honestly, the blame lies squarely on the ODF people. They put out a half assed spec.. did they think MS would donate any more of their time to go beyond the spec? Why should they? They were called to the table and failed.
ODF, if they REALLY want interopability, needs to finish the spec, and keep the pressure on for open formats.
Your question has already been answered. AFAIK, it's not a consipricy unless you take any action to implement said conspiricy. So in your case, those saying that group x should be killed don't cross the line until they get a weapon or start looking for a member of group x to kill.
No, they're not trying to remove the First Amendment. It's still there, and if this bill conflicts with the First Amendment (and I can't see how any reasonable person could say otherwise), its clear legally that the bill would be tossed out as unconstitutional.
That's true, but unfortunately beside the point. Many product managers and the like have such confusion over the terms of the GPL that they believe any software they write to run on a GPL'd platform (like Linux) must also have a free license.
Well, it does. Not because of the GPL, but because of those pushing the GPL that insist everything must be open source. It's not good enough a company releases binary linux drivers, no, these people insist that the drivers be open source as well, or they refuse to use it.
I know of a mother that was giving her son powerful steriods "under professional supervision." While trying to set a picture on the device, she somehow turned the pen (which was set with the proper dosage and filled with enough doses for a month) and gave 5x the proper dosage.
You're only "under professional supervision" while you're physically at the doctors office and being watched. Anything else is a joke, and an illusion. Do you know how many people can't figure out what "2 pills three times daliy" means?
Well, if I thought that to be important, I'd carry that information with me at all times. I know it's not as fancy as having the government looking at my records, but it's just as effective.
Hmm... well VT only wanted to pay a MAX of $36,000 / year for a software engineering position. Oh, and you start at the bottom of the pay scale no matter what, the 36k was the max end of the pay scale, after which you'd never get a raise. So, this doesn't suprise me at all.
No, the "tv license" isn't the same. You pay it, you can watch tv. It doesn't make you pass any kind of test prior to watching tv to make sure you "intelligent" enough to do so.
It's annoying because Windows is like a wife-beating husband. You live with it for years and years of pain, disappointment and broken promises, but just when you think you're ready to leave forever they turn around all smiles and sweetness.
So it's like running Linux, except that at some point Windows does turn around to "smiles and sweetness." Linux just kept punching.
That is *not* a comfortable operating system for a netbook
Huh? My manager is buying his daughter an acer netbook; it comes with 2GB of ram and a 160 GB hard drive. I think that more than exceeds Win7s requirements.
No, it doesn't. Driving an SUV doesn't destroy anything. Allowing everyone choice doesn't destroy anything but control-freaks.
Oh, I must have imagined Exxon oil washing up in Alaska, climate change, ice caps melting, smog, and cancer all coming from burning gas.
Allowing everyone the same option is called "equality of opportunity", and we know that not everyone will make the same choice, so your implication that "if we allow it everyone will do it" is nonsense.
Ya, that's why parks keep themselves clean and we don't need to have liter laws or people cleaning up trash blowing around in them.
No, failure to produce drives up the price. It isn't my fault that drilling offshore is NIMBY and ANWR is prohibited.
Well, why would I produce when I can keep current production where it is while demand is going up? I mean, we're not producing enough now which is why gas prices are still high. Oh wait...
No, I wouldn't say that, because it isn't true and isn't relevant. I don't think you have the right to breathe absolutely pure air, simply because the existence of other people (along with the animals and volcanoes and forest fires...) makes the air less than pure. That means there is some level of "pollution" that has to be allowed. If you want to demand that my addition to the level is zero, then you better shut off your computer and disconnect your electric service and stop eating anything you personally haven't grown in your backyard, since everything you do causes some level of "pollution."
I wasn't demanding polution be zero, but those that are making it signficantly worse by driving inefficent cars need to be reigned in. There's no excuse for buying a Hummer that gets 9 MPG when a car can get 29.
In other words, you have the right to exist, which implies the right to emit "stuff" into the air, so I have the same rights. Instead of using a fireplace to heat my home, I have an SUV. I think I come out ahead on "carbon credits".
Oh, well then I guess you won't mind if I "emit" sound into the air at all nights. I mean its excessive, but no more than excesive than the low MPGs of SUVs. And your home isn't being heated for free either; you're burning something there too, so your SUV is ADDING, not replacing a source of pollution. And my problem is that the SUV is exessively polluting.
You probably fell for the Clinton trick of issuing an executive order lowering allowable arsenic levels in water to some ridiculously tiny amount, which led to liberals flaming the conservatives when that order was quite appropriately rescinded by the next president. "Oooh, those awful Republicans want to poison the water", which is a patently absurd claim since the previous limits caused no danger to anyone, much less poisoned them. "Anything more than zero is too much" is a wonderful platitude, but it isn't realistic and it isn't possible. (And if you try to meet that level by drinking only distilled filtered water, you are responsible for a lot of carbon footprint for the energy necessary to reach those tiny (but still nonzero) levels of pollutants.)
No, that's just what you bleat because you don't want to exercise any kind of self control over your excesses. Again, no where did I say we can't pollute at all... but since I targeted SUVs, you should have come to the conslusion I'm against the excessive polluting they do.
This all avoids the initial issue, which is regulating businesses because they might not make useful things. People find SUVs useful, so they are being made. Prohibiting SUVs won't create an equal demand for tiny shitbox cars. A healthy economy relies on both producers making desired goods and consumers desiring them. Either side stops, the economy fails.
Yea, right, that's why last summer demand for smaller cars was rising with the gas prices. No, you can affect people by regulating things. If your prohibit SUVs, there's nothing that can take its place, so people would have to buy smaller cars..
Then create a better alternative. Whenever we have something better, cheaper, more reliable then a gas powered engine that will fit in an SUV sized car tell me, and I will buy it. Unfortunately as of May 1st, 2009, we don't. The alternatives we have are generally less reliable, require more maintenance and are a ton more expensive, plus they are tiny.
If enough people want "greener" cars, they can either pay extra or wait for the technology to become avalible to make cheap, decent, "green" cars and SUVs.
The counter point here would be that nobody will research alternative methods because they won't make back the money. Everything new is more expensive at first, there's pretty much no getting around it.
Um... I don't really understand your reasoning, but assuming that Mega Oil Company wants to make $5 billion in profit this year, if everyone drives cars that get 50 MPG, and drives the same amount of miles, they will have to raise oil prices in order to make that $5 billion. If everyone drives cars that get 20 MPG, they can afford to cut back the price some because there is much more demand.
Um, did you fail basic econ? Lower demand drives prices down, not up. Especially when you start talking about discressonary spending, which gas can be to some extent. But people would likely drive more, so prices would likely equalize about where they are now, because demand would likely stay where it's at now.
With your SUV though, you helped increase demand because your milage didn't change, but your miliage sucks more than it used to, so demand went up, and prices went up.
That would be true, but outside most large cities, it is rather clean (at least here in the USA), and it isn't too hard to move to a pristine suburb and commute to work in your ultra-clean car.
See, this is where you fail. Your right to pollute the air negatively affects me still... I now have to choose between a longer commute and less convient place to live, and still only have clean air sometimes (because I work in the city, so I'm still exposed half the day to your pollution).
If your car didn't pollute, there'd be no discussion. That's the argument.
I might agree with you if it wasn't for that fact. Get out of the larger cities and you have nearly no air pollution. If you need less work from your home in some wilderness area where there are no paved roads.
If my neighbor is harrassing me to the point I think about moving, I likely have a very good civil case against him, and its clear he's infringing on my rights. You just lost the argument, because now my right to live where I want and be happy is being infringed by your right to drive your gas guzzling car.
That's my point.. your right to drive your car isn't any more important than my right to live in a city with clean air (if anything, I'd argue my right to clean air is more important than your right to a gas guzzling SUV).
Because the spillover costs of your being a homeless, withering, stinking addict do exist.
Oh, and you have evidence for this? There's a very real "spillover cost" for you driving your car too... but we aren't banning cars are we?
Even legalized the use of crack and meth would have massive costs to society (though probably not as much as the current war on drugs).
Probably? It's not even in the same ballpark. Or do you think legal crack sellers would be allowed to mix in rat poison?
People said the same thing about alcohol, and society hasn't collapsed since that was re-legalized. Of course thanks to Prohibition we now have to deal with things we never did before... like the mob, which is STILL around today (thanks to Prohibition for drugs and gambling).
Well, I suggest you mind your own business, and keep out of othere's lives. At most you should care that obese people are the cause of rising healthcare costs... but the solution is to fix the insurance so that unhealthy people pay more, not ban food.
Honestly, why DON'T you care?
Because I don't know them, so I don't care what happens to them. I only care on the level that it affects my life.. causing my health premiums to go up even though I take care of my self.
BTW lack of empathy is also considered a sign of mental illness.
Oh, and where did you get your PhD? Being gay used to be called a mental illness too. I have plenty of empathy for family and friends... but not for someone I don't know from a hole in the wall. And it seems that is pretty normal... so perhaps you can actually answer my question honestly instead of trying to put yourself onto a pedistal:
And yet amazingly, that means nothing as to whether or not Office is ODF 1.1 compliant.
The reason it is so hard to define is so far everyone just looked at it and did it. Formally defining Power(x,y) is a lot harder than just looking at it and implement what common sense will tell you.
Ya, sounds like some really good engineering there. "Eh, just build this bridge kinda like that one... " The whole fucking idea of a spec is so that you look at the spec and can implement it... not so you can kinda mimic what someone else has done.
So the "solution" is to release a half finihsed spec and then just "do what everyone else does?" Isn't that exactly what people complained about MS doing? It sounds like ODF screwed themselves... because MS IS now compliant, and it makes ODF look seriously broken.
Well, from the article: "First, we might hear that ODF 1.1 does not define spreadsheet formulas and therefore it is not necessary for one vendor to use the same formula language that other vendors use."
Seems like a rather large hole in the spec itself. ODF 1.1 doesn't define spreedsheet forumlas? So, what version will? I wouldn't put any effort into guess, nor making my application read various other vendor formats.. when I may well have to recode again when 1.2 comes out.
If anyone's to blame here, it's the ODF people for not having a COMPLETE spec. If formulas are so important to spreadsheets (and they are), why the hell would your spec not include how to store said forumlas?
E.g., people want cars that can carry more than two skinny adults and a bag of peanuts. They're called SUVs. They carry more stuff and people more safely than tiny little cars. They go places that tiny little cars cannot. Some people don't want to allow this as a choice, so they create regulations on the market that limit choices.
"Your car must get 30 MPG." I'm ok paying for the gas at 27 MPG, it's none of your business if I want to pay extra for the comfort and safety.
"You live in the city and don't need an SUV." I live in the city and drive into the country to search for people when they get lost. I think that could be called "helpful", don't you?
The counter point is that letting almost everyone pick this option destroys the environment EVERYONE shares, and drives up prices of gas for people that don't actually buy large cars. So allowing things unrestricted negatively affects everyone. I suppose you could say your right to a big SUV ends at might right to breathe (cleaner) air.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I didn't make myself clear, as you and several others pointed out. What I meant is that when you google for windows problems you find forum after forum with the same useless answer: "download an updated driver" or something like that. When googling for linux problems you very quickly get to the place where experts meet and find a useful answer.
You know what I found; usually the "useless" answer actually does solve the problem. This quip of yours is seriously out of date.
That's the biggest advantage of open source. Even if you don't know how or don't have the time to mess with the source code, you can easily find people who are familiar with it.
You might, but you might not. I know I had lots of questions greeted by silence, or truely unhelpful answers. Why do you think I ditched Linux? It's problems become too much of a time sink.
As for the relative likelyhood of needing an expert intervention on both systems, let me tell you this: I was *very* familiar with the internals of windows before I started using linux. I was known as "the windows guy" before people started calling me "the linux guy". I know both sides of the equation, and I switched sides for a good reason. Linux is less demanding for the same functionality. It takes much less effort to keep a linux system working smoothly.
I really doubt it. Knowing regedit doesn't mean you know the "internals of Windows." There's quite a bit to Windows actually... it's a huge platform. And let me correct something, because it's clearly true: "I knew both sides of the equation." You don't anymore, and it's clear from your 1992 Windows issues that you don't.
I'd tell you to re-evaluate Windows, because much has changed.. but you're got Linus' cock so far down your throat I don't think you could do so objectively.
Aside from running Photoshop and Quicken, it does everything a computer should do, perfectly. I run work and entertainment applications. Play movies, browse the web, play music, invert matrixes, find eigenvalues, do fourier transforms, administer databases, etc.
I asked for the "and more." This is all stuff Windows already does very well for me. In other words, you pointed out the "just be windows" stuff.
And what I don't need to do: no need to run virus scan, no need to defrag disks, no need to buy memory upgrades, no need to buy software, no need to run regedit, etc.
Ha.. not because Linux is somehow more secure, which it's not. You don't need to run AV because nobody uses Linux on the desktop, so there's no point in trying to get a bot network of Linux machines. As far as your other crap goes, I don't need to upgrade anything either, run regedit.
Oh, and they give away Photoshop and Quicken for Linux users? How nice of them!
What windows can do but is much easier in Linux: run a web server, run a mail server, run a file server, run *any* server.
Hmm... most of those things Joe Sixpack doesn't give a shit about, much like the source code. Of coruse I can easily run server if I want to on Windows. IIS has FTP and Web, there are plenty of Windows mail servers. Just a few clicks and they're up and going.
And file servers... are you fucking kidding me? Filesharing in Windows is just a few clicks away, plenty of joe sixpacks set it up. Christ... you are WAY out of touch with reality.
No hassle, no regedit, no googling forum after forum looking for answers, no downloading drivers, no reformatting, no reinstalling. The "and more" that Linux does perfectly now is what a computer should do, it runs year after year without any intervention. I have a Linux server running without *any* input at all since 1992. It does its simple task exactly as it was meant to.
Yea, no need to download a driver. With Linux, it might work, but if it doesn't, you're screwed. Everything else applies to Windows just as much as Linux. Again, you're showing just how out of touch with reality you are.
On the desktop side, the "and more" means I can configure my desktop and icons in the way I prefer without any problem, I just select whatever I want without having to worry about "security". The system is secure because it was designed that way, I don't need to buy or download anything.
I can do that too, and Window is secure as well. Seriously... get your head out of your ass (and 1992).
I can configure the way the desktop works. I can select between several different desktop managers. High performance (KDE), easy to configure (Gnome), low hardware requirements (IceWM), you name it.
Wow... well, forutnatley Windows is easy to configure and performs well too. Low requirements only matter if you're running the same computer you were in 1992... which it sounds like you are. I don't care what OS is on a 1992 computer, it won't be fast enough for me.
And, if something doesn't work the way it should, I have no need to reformat and reinstall, download newer drivers, repeat, ad infinitum. With Linux there's always one more resource, google the problem and you'll find a forum somewhere with the answer, even if it means you'll have to recompile something. It's better to recompile than to fall back to reformat and reinstall...
And yet I'm spending less time getting Windows to do what I want than I did with Linux. What is really amusing is that the same reasons people had for not going to Linux are still there.. they were there when I switched (but at the time I was on the antiMS bandwagon too, and bought the garbage hype), and they're still there now. Nothing has changed in Linux.. it still has all the same old problems.
Thanks for proving my point though... I asked for the "and more" part and you gave me nothing but bullshit and lies, and nothing compelling. ("Oh... I can move my icons how I want to!" Like I couldn't in Windows..)
You're a dolt.
At the hospital my wife works at, they are using steroids to treat a range of problems, some of them as silly as "I think my sons penis is too small" or "my daughter doesn't have breasts yet / is already starting to grow breasts." So yes, appearly T is safe in some dosages, even when mommy doesn't know what she's doing and turns up the dosage inadverently to 2.5x the amount the doctor prescribed.
Like anything, too much is not a good thing, and once you introduce blanket bans you get black market effects... just like your cocain might contain some rat poison the black market steriods could contain just about anything, or might not even be for the right species.
Well, who cares what the specs used to be? This is an Acer netbook, coming in at $300 I believe.
Malice, or because they don't want to spend time implementing something that isn't part of the spec? The goal was to implement the spec, not to make sure OOo can read the files put out.
There's also the aspect of looking at other programs code; I'm sure they don't want GPL code slipping into their code. That leaves clean room reverse engineering... to do something not specified in the spec.
Is MS snickering at this? Possibly... but honestly, the blame lies squarely on the ODF people. They put out a half assed spec.. did they think MS would donate any more of their time to go beyond the spec? Why should they? They were called to the table and failed.
ODF, if they REALLY want interopability, needs to finish the spec, and keep the pressure on for open formats.
The problem is that the "and more" part Ubuntu already does perfectly
Really? And what's the "and more" part it does perfectly now? Before you answer, I could give a shit about source code access.
Your question has already been answered. AFAIK, it's not a consipricy unless you take any action to implement said conspiricy. So in your case, those saying that group x should be killed don't cross the line until they get a weapon or start looking for a member of group x to kill.
No, they're not trying to remove the First Amendment. It's still there, and if this bill conflicts with the First Amendment (and I can't see how any reasonable person could say otherwise), its clear legally that the bill would be tossed out as unconstitutional.
That's true, but unfortunately beside the point. Many product managers and the like have such confusion over the terms of the GPL that they believe any software they write to run on a GPL'd platform (like Linux) must also have a free license.
Well, it does. Not because of the GPL, but because of those pushing the GPL that insist everything must be open source. It's not good enough a company releases binary linux drivers, no, these people insist that the drivers be open source as well, or they refuse to use it.
Ugh, what a sham, and you feel for it.
I know of a mother that was giving her son powerful steriods "under professional supervision." While trying to set a picture on the device, she somehow turned the pen (which was set with the proper dosage and filled with enough doses for a month) and gave 5x the proper dosage.
You're only "under professional supervision" while you're physically at the doctors office and being watched. Anything else is a joke, and an illusion. Do you know how many people can't figure out what "2 pills three times daliy" means?
Well, if I thought that to be important, I'd carry that information with me at all times. I know it's not as fancy as having the government looking at my records, but it's just as effective.
Hmm... well VT only wanted to pay a MAX of $36,000 / year for a software engineering position. Oh, and you start at the bottom of the pay scale no matter what, the 36k was the max end of the pay scale, after which you'd never get a raise. So, this doesn't suprise me at all.
No, the "tv license" isn't the same. You pay it, you can watch tv. It doesn't make you pass any kind of test prior to watching tv to make sure you "intelligent" enough to do so.
It's annoying because Windows is like a wife-beating husband. You live with it for years and years of pain, disappointment and broken promises, but just when you think you're ready to leave forever they turn around all smiles and sweetness.
So it's like running Linux, except that at some point Windows does turn around to "smiles and sweetness." Linux just kept punching.
That is *not* a comfortable operating system for a netbook
Huh? My manager is buying his daughter an acer netbook; it comes with 2GB of ram and a 160 GB hard drive. I think that more than exceeds Win7s requirements.
So you've installed OSX on a wide variety of non-apple hardware?
No, it doesn't. Driving an SUV doesn't destroy anything. Allowing everyone choice doesn't destroy anything but control-freaks.
Oh, I must have imagined Exxon oil washing up in Alaska, climate change, ice caps melting, smog, and cancer all coming from burning gas.
Allowing everyone the same option is called "equality of opportunity", and we know that not everyone will make the same choice, so your implication that "if we allow it everyone will do it" is nonsense.
Ya, that's why parks keep themselves clean and we don't need to have liter laws or people cleaning up trash blowing around in them.
No, failure to produce drives up the price. It isn't my fault that drilling offshore is NIMBY and ANWR is prohibited.
Well, why would I produce when I can keep current production where it is while demand is going up? I mean, we're not producing enough now which is why gas prices are still high. Oh wait...
No, I wouldn't say that, because it isn't true and isn't relevant. I don't think you have the right to breathe absolutely pure air, simply because the existence of other people (along with the animals and volcanoes and forest fires...) makes the air less than pure. That means there is some level of "pollution" that has to be allowed. If you want to demand that my addition to the level is zero, then you better shut off your computer and disconnect your electric service and stop eating anything you personally haven't grown in your backyard, since everything you do causes some level of "pollution."
I wasn't demanding polution be zero, but those that are making it signficantly worse by driving inefficent cars need to be reigned in. There's no excuse for buying a Hummer that gets 9 MPG when a car can get 29.
In other words, you have the right to exist, which implies the right to emit "stuff" into the air, so I have the same rights. Instead of using a fireplace to heat my home, I have an SUV. I think I come out ahead on "carbon credits".
Oh, well then I guess you won't mind if I "emit" sound into the air at all nights. I mean its excessive, but no more than excesive than the low MPGs of SUVs. And your home isn't being heated for free either; you're burning something there too, so your SUV is ADDING, not replacing a source of pollution. And my problem is that the SUV is exessively polluting.
You probably fell for the Clinton trick of issuing an executive order lowering allowable arsenic levels in water to some ridiculously tiny amount, which led to liberals flaming the conservatives when that order was quite appropriately rescinded by the next president. "Oooh, those awful Republicans want to poison the water", which is a patently absurd claim since the previous limits caused no danger to anyone, much less poisoned them. "Anything more than zero is too much" is a wonderful platitude, but it isn't realistic and it isn't possible. (And if you try to meet that level by drinking only distilled filtered water, you are responsible for a lot of carbon footprint for the energy necessary to reach those tiny (but still nonzero) levels of pollutants.)
No, that's just what you bleat because you don't want to exercise any kind of self control over your excesses. Again, no where did I say we can't pollute at all... but since I targeted SUVs, you should have come to the conslusion I'm against the excessive polluting they do.
This all avoids the initial issue, which is regulating businesses because they might not make useful things. People find SUVs useful, so they are being made. Prohibiting SUVs won't create an equal demand for tiny shitbox cars. A healthy economy relies on both producers making desired goods and consumers desiring them. Either side stops, the economy fails.
Yea, right, that's why last summer demand for smaller cars was rising with the gas prices. No, you can affect people by regulating things. If your prohibit SUVs, there's nothing that can take its place, so people would have to buy smaller cars..
Then create a better alternative. Whenever we have something better, cheaper, more reliable then a gas powered engine that will fit in an SUV sized car tell me, and I will buy it. Unfortunately as of May 1st, 2009, we don't. The alternatives we have are generally less reliable, require more maintenance and are a ton more expensive, plus they are tiny.
If enough people want "greener" cars, they can either pay extra or wait for the technology to become avalible to make cheap, decent, "green" cars and SUVs.
The counter point here would be that nobody will research alternative methods because they won't make back the money. Everything new is more expensive at first, there's pretty much no getting around it.
Um... I don't really understand your reasoning, but assuming that Mega Oil Company wants to make $5 billion in profit this year, if everyone drives cars that get 50 MPG, and drives the same amount of miles, they will have to raise oil prices in order to make that $5 billion. If everyone drives cars that get 20 MPG, they can afford to cut back the price some because there is much more demand.
Um, did you fail basic econ? Lower demand drives prices down, not up. Especially when you start talking about discressonary spending, which gas can be to some extent. But people would likely drive more, so prices would likely equalize about where they are now, because demand would likely stay where it's at now.
With your SUV though, you helped increase demand because your milage didn't change, but your miliage sucks more than it used to, so demand went up, and prices went up.
That would be true, but outside most large cities, it is rather clean (at least here in the USA), and it isn't too hard to move to a pristine suburb and commute to work in your ultra-clean car.
See, this is where you fail. Your right to pollute the air negatively affects me still... I now have to choose between a longer commute and less convient place to live, and still only have clean air sometimes (because I work in the city, so I'm still exposed half the day to your pollution).
If your car didn't pollute, there'd be no discussion. That's the argument.
I might agree with you if it wasn't for that fact. Get out of the larger cities and you have nearly no air pollution. If you need less work from your home in some wilderness area where there are no paved roads.
If my neighbor is harrassing me to the point I think about moving, I likely have a very good civil case against him, and its clear he's infringing on my rights. You just lost the argument, because now my right to live where I want and be happy is being infringed by your right to drive your gas guzzling car.
That's my point.. your right to drive your car isn't any more important than my right to live in a city with clean air (if anything, I'd argue my right to clean air is more important than your right to a gas guzzling SUV).
Because the spillover costs of your being a homeless, withering, stinking addict do exist.
Oh, and you have evidence for this? There's a very real "spillover cost" for you driving your car too... but we aren't banning cars are we?
Even legalized the use of crack and meth would have massive costs to society (though probably not as much as the current war on drugs).
Probably? It's not even in the same ballpark. Or do you think legal crack sellers would be allowed to mix in rat poison?
People said the same thing about alcohol, and society hasn't collapsed since that was re-legalized. Of course thanks to Prohibition we now have to deal with things we never did before... like the mob, which is STILL around today (thanks to Prohibition for drugs and gambling).
Actually I do, not that I'd proselytize.
Well, I suggest you mind your own business, and keep out of othere's lives. At most you should care that obese people are the cause of rising healthcare costs... but the solution is to fix the insurance so that unhealthy people pay more, not ban food.
Honestly, why DON'T you care?
Because I don't know them, so I don't care what happens to them. I only care on the level that it affects my life.. causing my health premiums to go up even though I take care of my self.
BTW lack of empathy is also considered a sign of mental illness.
Oh, and where did you get your PhD? Being gay used to be called a mental illness too. I have plenty of empathy for family and friends... but not for someone I don't know from a hole in the wall. And it seems that is pretty normal... so perhaps you can actually answer my question honestly instead of trying to put yourself onto a pedistal:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1867735,00.html
And yet amazingly, that means nothing as to whether or not Office is ODF 1.1 compliant.
The reason it is so hard to define is so far everyone just looked at it and did it. Formally defining Power(x,y) is a lot harder than just looking at it and implement what common sense will tell you.
Ya, sounds like some really good engineering there. "Eh, just build this bridge kinda like that one... " The whole fucking idea of a spec is so that you look at the spec and can implement it... not so you can kinda mimic what someone else has done.
The ODF people screwed themselves here.
So the "solution" is to release a half finihsed spec and then just "do what everyone else does?" Isn't that exactly what people complained about MS doing? It sounds like ODF screwed themselves... because MS IS now compliant, and it makes ODF look seriously broken.
Something would have been better than nothing.
Well, from the article: "First, we might hear that ODF 1.1 does not define spreadsheet formulas and therefore it is not necessary for one vendor to use the same formula language that other vendors use."
Seems like a rather large hole in the spec itself. ODF 1.1 doesn't define spreedsheet forumlas? So, what version will? I wouldn't put any effort into guess, nor making my application read various other vendor formats.. when I may well have to recode again when 1.2 comes out.
If anyone's to blame here, it's the ODF people for not having a COMPLETE spec. If formulas are so important to spreadsheets (and they are), why the hell would your spec not include how to store said forumlas?
That depends... is the remaining 15% only explotable if you run code on the local computer, or are some of them remote exploitable?
E.g., people want cars that can carry more than two skinny adults and a bag of peanuts. They're called SUVs. They carry more stuff and people more safely than tiny little cars. They go places that tiny little cars cannot. Some people don't want to allow this as a choice, so they create regulations on the market that limit choices.
"Your car must get 30 MPG." I'm ok paying for the gas at 27 MPG, it's none of your business if I want to pay extra for the comfort and safety.
"You live in the city and don't need an SUV." I live in the city and drive into the country to search for people when they get lost. I think that could be called "helpful", don't you?
The counter point is that letting almost everyone pick this option destroys the environment EVERYONE shares, and drives up prices of gas for people that don't actually buy large cars. So allowing things unrestricted negatively affects everyone. I suppose you could say your right to a big SUV ends at might right to breathe (cleaner) air.